Public Bill Committee

[Sir John Butterfill in the Chair]

Further written evidence to be reported to the House

PB 37 City of London Corporation

New Clause 28

Delegation of functions of regional planning bodies
‘(1) In Part 1 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (regional functions) after section 4 insert—
“4A Delegation of RPB functions to regional development agencies
(1) The RPB may make arrangements with the regional development agency for its region for the exercise by the agency on behalf of the RPB of any of the RPB’s functions.
(2) Subsection (3) applies if, by virtue of section 2(7), the Secretary of State has power to exercise any functions of the RPB.
(3) The Secretary of State may make arrangements with the regional development agency for the region of the RPB for the exercise by the agency on behalf of the Secretary of State of any of the RPB’s functions.
(4) Subsection (5) applies if, by virtue of section 10(3), the Secretary of State has power to prepare a draft revision of the RSS because of a failure to comply by the RPB.
(5) The Secretary of State may make arrangements with the regional development agency for the region of the RPB for the exercise by the agency on behalf of the Secretary of State of the Secretary of State’s function under section 10(3).
(6) Arrangements under this section—
(a) may be made only if the regional development agency agrees to the making of the arrangements and their terms;
(b) may be varied only if the regional development agency agrees to the variation and the terms of the variation.
(7) Arrangements under subsection (1) may be brought to an end at any time by the RPB.
(8) Arrangements under subsection (3) or (5) may be brought to an end at any time by the Secretary of State.
(9) A regional development agency which, by virtue of arrangements under this section, has power, or is required, to exercise a function of the RPB, may do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of the function.
(10) Arrangements under subsection (1) for the exercise of a function by a regional development agency do not prevent the RPB from exercising the function.
(11) Arrangements under subsection (3) or (5) for the exercise of a function by a regional development agency do not prevent the Secretary of State from exercising the function.
(12) “Regional development agency” means a development agency established under section 1 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998.”’
(2) The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(3) In section 8 (regional consultation) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The reference in subsection (2)(b) to the functions of a regional development agency does not include any function conferred by arrangements under section 4A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (delegation of functions of regional planning bodies to regional development agencies).”
(4) In section 11 (borrowing) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) The references in subsections (2) and (4) to the functions of a regional development agency do not include any function conferred by arrangements under section 4A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (delegation of functions of regional planning bodies to regional development agencies).”
(5) In section 18 (regional accountability) after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) The reference in subsection (1)(c) to the functions of a regional development agency does not include any function conferred by arrangements under section 4A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (delegation of functions of regional planning bodies to regional development agencies).”
(6) In paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 (delegation of functions by regional development agencies) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to anything authorised or required to be done under an enactment includes a reference to anything authorised or required to be done under arrangements made under an enactment.”’.—[John Healey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

John Healey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I welcome you back to the Chair, Sir John, for our latest, and perhaps last, sitting. The purpose of the new clause is to allow regional assemblies to work with regional development agencies on regional planning issues during the period of transition towards a new set of arrangements at a regional level, which we set out in July in the sub-national review of economic development and regeneration. The arrangements proposed in that plan will require separate, new primary legislation, and we propose to consult as a step towards that before long.
The new clause might be the subject of some misapprehension, so I shall start in the negative by explaining what it will not do and what it is not for. First, it will not allow regional planning powers to be transferred to the regional development agency. If Parliament agrees to such a transfer, it would be under the new legislation we propose and certainly would not be until at least 2010. Secondly, it does not allow the regional development agency to grab those powers because the initiative remains with the national assembly as the regional planning body. Thirdly, it does not undermine the regional assembly, which remains responsible as the regional planning body for the regional spatial strategy. Finally, it does not change the exceptional—some might say extreme—circumstances in which the Secretary of State may take regional planning functions back from a regional assembly as the regional planning body, as was set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
However, it is important that the work that regional assemblies undertake as regional planning bodies in their area is not undermined by a reduction of capacity or a growing uncertainty over their future. That is particularly relevant in trying to maintain the commitment that we set out in the housing Green Paper to earlier revisions of the housing provisions in the regional spatial strategies.
The new clause is designed to encourage what in some regions is already close working between the regional assembly, the regional development agency, local authorities and some of the other agencies and interests in the region, and we want to allow regional development agencies to carry out some of the regional assembly functions on their behalf where that is wanted by the assembly and agreed by the agency.
Currently, there are limits on what regional development agencies can do in relation to planning, and that is where the barrier that the new clause is designed to overcome lies. For example, they cannot employ staff to carry out or be involved in functions that are currently assigned to regional assemblies. In some regions, such as the west midlands, the regional assembly and the regional development agency are keen to pursue early staff exchanges and do more on a joint basis. Therefore, the new clause is designed to try to remove the problems and barriers that are present in this period of temporary transition.
We do not propose to transfer regional planning powers to the regional development agencies in this new clause. We will not propose to transfer those powers until we bring further, more comprehensive legislation that we plan following consultation shortly.
I hope that that is helpful and I commend the clause to the Committee.

Jacqui Lait: I welcome you back, Sir John, to what I am almost certain will be our final session.
The Minister has made as good a fist as he can on this new clause 28, given that Conservative Members are against this transfer of planning powers to the RDAs. The parallel, I suppose, is our attempt to repeal the Planning-gain Supplement (Preparations) Act 2007, because this paves the way towards this transfer of powers to the RDAs.
It is kind of the Minister to indicate that some of the RDAs are very keen to take on the regional assemblies’ planning powers. As far as I am aware local authorities would much prefer to take on these planning powers and get rid of the RDAs, quite apart from getting rid of the regional assemblies. I do not wish to advise my hon. Friends to support this new clause—

Clive Betts: I have heard many Opposition Members criticise the lack of effectiveness of regional assemblies. Is it the hon. Lady’s argument that these powers should not be transferred; that we should simply keep the regional assemblies as they are and let them carry on?

Jacqui Lait: Heaven forfend that we should keep the regional assemblies. The Opposition do not believe in regionalised government. If the hon. Gentleman has not picked that up by now I do not know where he has been for the last 10 years.

Alun Michael: Would the hon. Lady give way?

Jacqui Lait: Is the right hon. Gentleman about to tell me that Wales is a region?

Alun Michael: I am about to tell the hon. Lady, who does not need reinforcing in any aspects of ignorance she might possess, that the Conservatives would appear to be making a considerable U-turn. She may have forgotten that they set up urban development corporations and under the last Labour Government they were given planning powers. I remember it very well because, although we had a Conservative Secretary of State he agreed not to pass those on to urban development corporations but to keep them with local government. It seems there is a bit of a conversion going on here—in England.

John Butterfill: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady will not be lured down this particular alleyway, as it has no relevance at all to the matter under discussion.

Jacqui Lait: Sir John, you are spoiling a jolly good argument.
The Opposition have been against the regional assemblies from their inception and we believe that local authorities can carry out many of the RDAs’ functions, certainly on planning and housing. We should be moving towards that format for the transfer of powers not giving further powers to the undemocratic RDAs. We are against their housing powers, we are against their planning powers and we are against the transfer of resources. In fact, one of our concerns is the lack of reassurance that we have had from the Minister that the community infrastructure levy will not be levied by RDAs, thereby reinforcing their undemocratic and yet tax-raising nature. This may indeed be the first step—

Clive Betts: The hon. Lady seems to be making Conservative policy up as she goes along this afternoon. I understand her position to be that the Conservative party is not in favour of the regional assemblies, is quite happy to see them go and does not believe that their power should be transferred to the regional development agencies. I think that her words were that some of what they do could be done by local councils, which seems to imply that some of what they do would not be done at local level. There would not be any regional bodies, so presumably she is going to transfer the power up to national government.

Jacqui Lait: The hon. Gentleman is having a jolly good try at diverting attention from the purpose of this new clause brought forward by his own Government which, of course, presages the end of regional assemblies. Given that he was elected at several elections on the retention of regional assemblies, the ground is shifting under his feet as well.

John Healey: As we are into our 14th session of scrutiny on this Bill, will the hon. Lady not accept that what she said a little earlier was mistaken? There is no power in this Bill for an RDA to raise the community infrastructure levy.

John Butterfill: Order. It is time that we dealt with the new clause rather than being lured into discussions about what may or may not be the Conservative party’s policies towards either regional assemblies or RDAs.

Jacqui Lait: I accept your guidance, Sir John. Perhaps we can have some discussions in the corridors outside afterwards, or in other forums. However, we come back to the fact that this new clause paves the way for the RDAs to have planning powers that we do not believe the RDAs should have. Moreover, the Minister mentioned that the Government were expecting to have discussions on the transfer of those powers, but the Local Government Association, in particular, is exceedingly affronted about their taking place before discussion on the consultation document has been completed. We are back to the lack of consultation on the community infrastructure levy.
It is inappropriate for this House to agree to the potential for discussions between the regional assemblies and the RDAs under a legislative framework before the final structure has been worked out between the Local Government Association and the Government and indeed others who have an interest in this area. I seem to remember that not very long ago there was a bit of excitement when the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government signed a concordat with the leader of the Local Government Association indicating that local government initiatives should go forward only after consultation. The Local Government Association does not believe that the new clause complies with that concordat. We want to ensure that local government and the local authorities are not excluded from their rightful place in deciding where planning powers should go and what is appropriate for the regional development authorities, which, in my view, with regard to planning, is very little. As I understand it, many of the regional development agencies would much prefer not to be involved in the Government’s top-down direction of planning and housing. These powers should in fact be transferred to the local authorities.
I will draw my remarks to a close by saying that we are very unhappy about the new clause. There has been insufficient time to think these matters through in great detail as it has come forward so late, and we will consider returning to it at a later stage.

Daniel Rogerson: I welcome you back to the Chair for this final session, Sir John, as others have already done. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Beckenham has just said, but there is certainly a difference of opinion between our parties on the potential for doing things at a regional level. I am sure we would agree, however, that the Government’s policy over the past 10 years has been a bit of a mess, and that any positives that might have come from it have been lost and we are left flailing around, trying to determine what the future should be.
The Minister has announced that there will be a major consultation on the way forward, at which point all sorts of organisations will express an opinion, not least the local authorities, who lost a lot of their planning influence when these matters were last addressed. Therefore, to bring forward this new clause now is a little premature. Just because an RDA is willing to work towards taking over some planning responsibility, and just because a regional assembly has a very limited life span anyway, does not necessarily mean that the policy is in line with what the people of the region would like to see. Neither the RDAs nor the regional assemblies as constituted are the most democratic of bodies, so for them to stitch up a deal between them in a particular region is not necessarily putting an especially good gloss on the way forward.
Hon. Members will have heard from organisations such as the wildlife trusts, who have great concerns about what the RDAs are set up to do. They are set up to deal with economic development matters, but planning is a much wider issue. Sustainable development and environmental concerns come a long way down their list of responsibilities and core functions. So to transfer powers from a body that at least, while not democratically elected in its current form, has a view to all sorts of policy issues, and hand them over to a body that has an important but fairly limited focus is not necessarily the right thing to do.
I am concerned that we could be moving into the territory that we discussed earlier on with regard to the planning gains supplement when we paved the way for something that might never happen. If it is not likely to happen and we were later to have legislation—

Chris Mole: Has the hon. Gentleman ever spoken to a Liberal Democrat member of a regional assembly or a regional development agency? I ask that because, having been a member of an RDA and having now been joined in this House by an hon. Member for one of the Croydon seats who is on the London Development Agency, I have spoken to plenty of people who welcome the opportunity to be accountable for their decisions. We must remember that a large proportion of the regional assemblies are elected councillors themselves and are designed to bring in other interests as well. So if there is to be strategic planning, the hon. Gentleman needs to tell us how he would do that if not in the way in which it is currently done.

Daniel Rogerson: The Liberal Democrats believe that there is scope for regions, where those regions are bottom-up, and where there is agreement on what those regions should be. I am a somewhat parochial Member of Parliament representing Cornwall, and there has never been any consensus within the south-west region that it represents a natural region. In an e-mail conversation with Councillor Chris White, with whom the Committee is familiar, he said that he was concerned about regional assembly staff and their future, which is a very touchy issue. However, I fear that I am getting away from the issue at hand.
This is a paving measure for something that might not be needed. If we are to have a proper consultation on the way forward, hopefully the ideas that that will generate will lead to something that is more accountable and fitting for the needs of sub-regional areas. Let us wait for that and not add this clause to the Bill.

David Curry: Having been told by the Minister this morning that, unlike Sampson, I had actually gained power by having my locks shorn, I would like to say my pennyworth.
The RDAs are hugely variable. Some are known to be pretty grim. Yorkshire Forward—the one I have to deal with—started off very well. It had a very strong strategic focus, but a lot of that has been dissipated in too many micro-actions as it has been asked to do too many things. That may be a general criticism. If I could make one recommendation it would be for it to stop coming down to the House of Commons to give enormously expensive tea parties at which three MPs and sundry Peers from the House of Lords with nothing better to do turn up, accompanied by a large number of their own staff. The RDA can much better do it in Leeds, where it is based.
Will the Minister clarify what is going to happen? He said that new legislation will ensure the formal transfer of planning powers to the RDAs. Fair enough; that is clean. He said that the RDAs cannot “grab” the powers. That is understood. However, where does the boundary lie between the powers that the regional assembly may decide to invite the RDA to take, and the formal powers with which they will be endowed under the new legislation? That is not clear to me. To what extent could the incremental transfer of competence amount to something very close to a full exercise of powers in anticipation of the legislation that will make that formal transfer? I do not like messy legislation; we have got to ensure that we know where the boundary lies.
The RDAs are not accountable. When the Government unveiled the sub-regional strategy before the summer break, they said that with the regional assemblies disappearing, mechanisms of accountability would have to be introduced for the RDAs. However, we still do not know what those mechanisms of accountability are going to be. At the moment, there is a vacuum. I have asked the Minister on a number of occasions over the course of these deliberations whether the Government are still intending to establish regional Select Committees. Each time he has studiously avoided referring to the question in his response, so I ask him again: are the Government still intending to institute regional Select Committees?
Finally, when the Government unveiled their sub-regional strategy, I was rather enthusiastic about it. City regions have a great deal of potential. The Leeds city region, in my part of the world, would incorporate what used to be the old west riding part of the north riding and that would make a great deal of sense. However, I would like the other instrument engineered to that geometry. In other words, the regional development agency would conform to the Leeds city region, just as if the south Yorkshire cities—and the Minister represents one of them—were to form their own city region, there would be a case for them having the development agency functions. I would not wish to create too much of a monolith in the RDAs if it makes sense later to try to re-engineer the situation, if the idea of a city region takes off.
We need to do some thinking about what the constitution of a city region might be—how would it actually work? The European Union, if I dare say so, gives some good indication of how big countries and small countries can get by with voting systems with which they can all live. However, there is a lot of work to be done before we get to that stage. Meanwhile, we should be a little cautious before we introduce what may well be seen as pragmatic measures that would leave very untidy edges. I would prefer to wait for the Minister to come forward with his formal consultations and legislation to complete the transfer, whether or not we think it is a good idea. If it is going to be carried out, I would like it to be done cleanly so that I can see what is happening. We are left with a very murky period in the middle of ill-defined boundaries. I would like to have as many landing lights as possible on the runway so that I know where I am going.

John Healey: Let me try to deal with the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, because they were precise and direct, although he did more generally welcome the direction of the sub-national review, which goes well beyond the bounds of the new clause. I welcome that, but will not dwell on it.
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s desire for clean-cut legislation. That is why I am at pains to draw a distinction between what is proposed in the new clause and what may follow in consultation to put into practice the plan in the sub-national review, which will then be legislated for. I shall try to answer his questions as directly and clearly as I can. There is a distinction between what we want to see in practice during the interim period and what the arrangements might be after subsequent legislation. The first distinction concerns the functions relating to planning which a regional assembly can choose to delegate to a regional development agency. Future legislation might assume or bestow planning powers on a regional development agency. The sort of planning functions that the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members are thinking about might include monitoring developments against a particular plan, producing analytical reports to help develop a plan and managing events as part of a planning process, such as consultation events. Those functions are part of the planning responsibility. However, the responsibility will remain with the regional assembly.
The question of assuming or bestowing planning powers on a regional development agency would change the nature and the location of the regional planning body by changing who or what it is. Under the new clause, the regional planning body is and will remain the regional assembly. In other words, responsibility for planning will remain with the regional planning body, which is the regional assembly. Responsibility for the regional spatial strategy, even though some contributory functions may be delegated to the RDA, will remain with the regional planning body, which is the regional assembly. Responsibility for submitting the regional spatial strategy to the Secretary of State for final approval will remain with the regional planning body, which is the regional assembly.
The new clause will promote a relatively modest change. I hope that it will be regarded by members of the Committee as a pragmatic one. Essentially, it will give RDAs the scope to play a part in the planning activities and functions of their region. They will be able to benefit the region in a way that they cannot at the moment because they are not allowed to do so. For instance, they might be able to employ officers related to functions that are not currently within their statute. That is what the new clause is designed to do. It is not a Trojan horse that will somehow subvert the proper process of consultation which we will go through before making significant and separate subsequent legislation. I hope that that explanation gives the cleanliness that the right hon. Gentleman talked about. On that basis, I hope that hon. Members accept the new clause.

David Curry: I am grateful to the Minister for what has been a sensible conversation. If the regional assembly were to invite the RDA to act as an agency for it to carry out certain functions, would the RDA need its own staff? Would it not make sense for the staff who are currently attached to the regional assembly to carry out those functions to be attached to the RDA for those purposes?
 John Healey rose—

David Curry: The answer seems to be coming from behind the Minister.

John Healey: I am looking solely and straight at the right hon. Gentleman. The answer is that it may well be. If it were sensible to transfer that sort of function and personnel, there is currently a barrier to doing so. The new clause is designed to remove that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 29

Local development orders: removal of requirement to implement policies
‘(1) Section 61A of TCPA 1990 (local development orders) is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) Omit subsection (1) (requirement to implement policies).
(3) In subsection (2) for “A local development order may” substitute “A local planning authority may by order (a local development order)”.
(4) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 4A to TCPA 1990 (revision of local development orders) omit sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).’.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 30

Appeals: miscellaneous amendments
‘Schedule [Appeals: miscellaneous amendments] (appeals: miscellaneous amendments) has effect.’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Geographically-specified national policy statements
‘(1) This section sets out the requirements for national policy statements which make particular reference to specific geographical areas under section 5(5)(d).
(2) Where a proposal for a national policy statement is made by the Secretary of State with implications for a specific geographical area, the Secretary of State shall commission and fund an assessment by the relevant local planning authority, or authorities, of—
(a) whether the proposal is consonant with the principles enumerated in the authority’s local development documents as defined in section 17 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,
(b) the likely impact of the proposal on communities within the local authority area,
(c) whether the proposal meets with the approval of persons residing in the relevant local authority area, and
(d) any other matter which the relevant planning authority considers appropriate.
(3) A local authority area is within subsection (2) if any of the locations concerned is in the authority’s area, or a neighbouring authority’s area.
(4) A “proposal” in subsection (2) shall be defined as in section 7(3).’.—[Dan Rogerson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

Amendment of the meaning of development
‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 55 (meaning of development and new development), in subsection (2)(a) leave out “for making good war damage or works begun after 5th December 1968”.
(3) In section 336(1), leave out the definition of “war damage”.’.—[Mrs. Lait.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Jacqui Lait: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is another attempt to tidy up the statute book in relation to planning issues. The new clause would remove from planning control the exemption to repair war damage caused in the second world war and the completion of basement works that were begun before 5 December 1968. I understand why there was an exemption for war damaged buildings when the Town and Country Planning Act was first introduced in 1947. We were keen to repair the infrastructure, provide people with houses and buildings in which they could work, and to generally repair the economy. However, as I said when we discussed a similar issue, it is now more than 60 years on. Have there been any planning applications to repair war damage in the past 10 or 15 years under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990? After 60 years, should there still be an exemption for second world war damage? The only possibility of such an exemption being needed is that in the process of developing a new building in or around London or other big cities such as Coventry, an unexploded bomb is found which has a consequential effect on planning permission.
As to the completion of
“basement works begun before 5 December 1968”,
if people are still waiting to complete them after 40 years, I have serious fears for the state of the building above the basement. If the Minister can explain why the provision is still on the statute book, I would have some sympathy with the proposal. Otherwise, my feeling is that after all these years we should be tidying up the statute book and getting rid of legislation whose time has passed.

Parmjit Dhanda: Having read the new clause many times and having tried to get my head around it, I have some sympathy for the proposal. However, as the new clause refers to basements and whether they need development consent post-1968, I must resist it, first, because it would not do what the hon. Lady hopes it will and, secondly, because, as she rightly says, it will be better to have clarity across the board in respect of developments and basements. We will consult on the matter per se during the summer and thus be able to provide more clarity about what is a permitted development. I hope that having considered those two points, she will withdraw the motion.

Jacqui Lait: If the Government want to take up an Opposition amendment, except in rare circumstances, they are always happy to change the wording, so the barrier to their accepting the new clause would be removed immediately. May I assume that the summer consultation to which the Minister refers is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s consultation on heritage buildings, or can we look forward to a separate consultation? Will it also include the war damage and the basement issues, or do they remain as two separate issues in his mind?

Parmjit Dhanda: To my mind, the consultation will take war damage into account. The hon. Lady makes a personal point about clarity. Reading the new clause brings to life the fact that the area is much more complex than most people probably realise. I hope that that answers her question.

Jacqui Lait: I accept the Minister’s assurances and look forward to the result of the consultation. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn

New Clause 14

Amendment of Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
‘(1) The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 67(2) (publicity for applications affecting setting of listed buildings) after “situated” insert “or online on its own website”.’.—[Mrs. Lait.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Jacqui Lait: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would bring the conservation business into the 21st century. It proposes that publicity for applications affecting listed buildings should be online on a website, and if the Minister will accept it we can move on very quickly.

Richard Benyon: I will take just 30 seconds. I mentioned this earlier. My local authority calculates that the cost of giving publicity to applications is around £63,000 on an annual basis. Multiplied across England and Wales, the change would save £10 million in public money. It would be welcomed by many small local authorities which are strapped for cash at the moment.

Parmjit Dhanda: New clause 14 would amend section 67 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 relating to the publicity requirements for planning applications affecting the setting of a listed building. The intention of the clause is to allow local planning authorities to advertise such applications on the internet rather than in local newspapers.
Section 67(1) of that Act provides that the Secretary of State may prescribe publicity requirements for applications for planning permission in cases where the local planning authority considers that the development would affect the setting of a listed building. Regulation 5A of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990 sets out the specific publicity requirements for applications affecting the setting of a listed building.
The local planning authority is required to publish in a local newspaper and on site a notice indicating the nature of the development and naming a place where the application and related documents can be inspected. Where the local planning authority maintains a website for the purpose of advertisement of applications, the notices must also state the address of a website where the application and related documents may be inspected. More and more authorities have these websites, and that is making and will continue to make a difference.
There is therefore no need to change the primary legislation in the way proposed as the publicity requirements for applications affecting the setting of listed buildings could be changed by amending the planning regulations of 1990. We appreciate that, as the hon. Gentleman described, local planning authorities incur costs from advertising planning applications in local newspapers rather than on line. We will consider this issue as part of the review and simplification of the General Development Procedure Order 1995 referred to in the planning White Paper. I hope that the hon. Lady will therefore withdraw the motion.

Jacqui Lait: On the grounds of the Minister’s assurance, I shall be happy to do so. I look forward to reading the consultation document next summer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 17

Decisions of Panel and Council (duty in relation to electromagnetic fields)
‘(1) This section applies in relation to an application for an order granting development consent if the decision-maker is a Panel or the Council.
(2) In deciding the application, the Panel or Council must ensure that it does not expose any person to any risk to their health arising from exposure to electric and magnetic fields with a frequency of between 30 and 300 Hertz.’.—[Mr. Benyon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Richard Benyon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is fundamental and asks how far we are prepared to take risks with public health resulting from new developments. My name sits in solitary splendour on the new clause and I hope that I can persuade hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to support it. It would impose a duty on planners to consider health risks arising from extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. I am sure that all members of the Committee know what those are, but if they would like some help, the cross-party inquiry into childhood leukaemia provided a very good definition in its paper published in July 2007. It states:
“Both electric fields and magnetic fields are created by the generation and transmission of electricity. The term EMF is used to describe the mixture of these fields to which people are exposed. Major sources of EMF in our environment include High Voltage Overhead Transmission Lines... electricity substations”.
There is growing evidence of an association—I use that word carefully—between increased risks of childhood leukaemia and the location of homes and schools. Childhood leukaemia is the most common of all childhood cancers. There are 500 diagnoses a year and, while survival rates are improving, its incidence has doubled since the 1970s. I would be the first to concede that there could be many factors behind that, but there are certain milestones in the evidence that the Committee should consider, and the Bill provides a good vehicle for making radical changes.
In 2005, the Draper report, which was a ground-breaking piece of research funded by the Department of Health, found that children living within 200 m of high-voltage power lines from birth had a 69 per cent. increased risk of developing childhood leukaemia. That is nearly 70 per cent., which is a very high number indeed. In 2005, in response to that report, the Health Protection Agency set up the stakeholder advisory group on extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields, which made recommendations to the Government on practical, precautionary measures.
My new clause seeks, as a precautionary measure, to reduce the public’s exposure to EMF from sources such as high-voltage power lines. In April last year, SAGE reported that a ban on building new homes or schools within a specified distance of high-voltage lines was “the best available option” for obtaining a significant reduction in exposure to EMF from power lines. The cross-party group also defined extremely low frequency EMFs as having a frequency of between 30 and 300 hertz, and that is in the new clause. The Health Protection Agency has since recommended that the attention of local planning departments should be drawn to that evidence.
We are also assisted by a report from the World Health Organisation, which reported on the issue last year and made a number of recommendations. The first of two main recommendations stated:
“When changes to existing ELF sources are contemplated, ELF field reduction should be considered alongside safety, reliability and economic aspects.”
The second recommendation suggested:
“Local authorities should improve planning of ELF EMF-emitting facilities, including better consultation between industry, local government, and citizens when siting major ELF EMF-emitting sources.”
I am sorry to burden the Committee with jargon, but we have a situation where the Government are rightly shaping their opinion on the growing body of evidence. It would be a mistake to have to revisit the issue at a later stage when the Government will have to respond further to that growing body of opinion.
Many of us in the room are parents, and some of us have become parents recently. It is an extremely sensitive issue. It is hard to contemplate the experience of a family when a child is diagnosed with childhood leukaemia—there is not only the suffering of the child, but the fear and misery for the family. I do not want to play on the heart strings of the Committee, but want to look in a completely straightforward and scientific way at the direction in which the science is moving. Concern is felt across the House, and early-day motions 403 and 1784, which address the issue, have received 233 and 146 signatures respectively.
I finish by making two key points. First, the Government want to set national policy statements that the infrastructure planning commission will have to use when making decisions. There is an opportunity to include a recognition of the association between electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia, and to make applicants and the IPC recognise those factors in national policy statements. Secondly, it is extremely expensive to re-route a power line, and all relevant stakeholders in the application, including the Government, should address that key issue at the planning stage.

Chris Mole: The hon. Gentleman took great pains to assert that he was going to use the term “association” and yet the usual basis on which we make judgments is cause and effect. Cleary there is no evidence of cause and effect that is demonstrable in statistical terms because there can be relationships between two measurable factors that are not necessarily causally linked but exist in the same location for different reasons. That is why there has to be a science that does not move; new evidence might be gained but there has to be evidence of cause and effect before a decision to legislate is taken.

Richard Benyon: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the words of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo). She is responsible for dealing with that matter. She wrote to the charity Children with Leukaemia, saying:
“This issue obviously needs serious thought and we will be in touch with you once we have shaped our thinking in the light of all the advice that has now emerged.”——[Official Report, Housing and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 17 January 2008; c. 353.]
It is clear from that that the Government recognise that there is a huge shift in the evidential basis for the assertion that there may be an association. It ill behoves us to say that there is no risk and that we should therefore just forget about it. It is of fundamental importance and massive concern to families up and down the country. The point is that if it can be included in the national policy statements and be dealt with at the planning stage, it does not have to be revisited later, when looking at re-routing, burying power lines or moving an electricity sub-station. There is an entirely practical cost element and an element based on emerging evidence. In addition, the Government are rightly thinking in that direction as well, all of which point towards including the new clause in the Bill.

Elfyn Llwyd: I support the new clause. The hon. Gentleman ought to be congratulated on tabling it and on his arguments in favour of it. It is all very well talking about cause and effect, but surely where public health is concerned precautionary principles should take precedence over such balancing acts. There is a body of scientific opinion in favour of that kind of clause and he is right. If we take a precautionary line, we can avoid further health risks and/or costs.
It is a perfectly proper new clause and should have been in the Bill all along because we all know from our postbags how big a concern it is whenever one of those power lines is proposed anywhere near a school, for example. We are very busy bees at that time dealing with various complaints and so on, all of which could be avoided. I fully support the hon. Gentleman and I hope that the Minister will give the matter further thought and perhaps come back with something that might accommodate people’s concerns.

John Healey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury on both his interest and his ingenuity in tabling the new clause. It is similar to one that was floated in the Bill on the Homes and Communities Agency just over 10 days ago. The serious point—and I am sincere in this—is that he is part of a significant all-party push behind a concern to have a more firm science base, which as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich says needs to be more clearly established, and to see a suitably stronger Government policy response. He has given that process a significant shove.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the risk from extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields. I am advised, for ease of reference, to call those fields ELF EMFs, which I will. The hon. Gentleman is right that the main sources of those fields is power lines, but ELF EMFs are also emitted by electricity sub-stations, household wiring and electrical appliances around the house. They are by no means confined to the situation that concerns him.
The hon. Gentleman touched on this, but guidelines are in place. The Health Protection Agency has, with additional advice, looked at how those should be beefed up. It has provided that advice to Government, and, as he said, we are rightly shaping our opinion on that at the moment. We need to do that, but legislating in advance of coming to a conclusion about understanding the extent of the risk and, therefore, what is necessary is a little premature.
One point of comfort to the hon. Gentleman is that we are clear, and ministerial colleagues have made clear, that any precautionary measures that we conclude are going to be required as a result of the concern and the potential risk of ELF EMFs will be implemented at the national level. Therefore, the specific duty that he wants to put on the infrastructure planning commission is probably not the right way to proceed and is probably jumping the gun. However, as I said, he has given the debate an important shove and helped to raise its profile. 
Returning to the response that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), gave on the Housing and Regeneration Bill about 10 days ago when the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) moved a similar new clause, as the junior Minister with responsibility for housing and planning, he agreed to meet the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood. I do not believe that that meeting has taken place yet and the hon. Member for Newbury may wish to join it. That seems a sensible way of bringing those two interests together. He may also wish to know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, whom he quoted, is due also to see my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), who chaired the all-party parliamentary inquiry into these things, which also gave significant support to the impetus. On that basis, I hope that he does not feel that he needs to press his new clause to a Division. Again, I pay tribute to the way in which he raised the issue in Committee.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. Right from the outset, however, I should say that I should not be congratulated. The wonderful organisation Children with Leukaemia is excellent at bringing to the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House the devastating affects of that illness, the science that relates to it and the experts’ direction of travel. I take the Minister’s point that there may be other opportunities to raise the subject. My co-conspirator, to whom he referred, is my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood. He was on that cross-party inquiry, chaired by the hon. Member for Dartford. If I can tag along with him to meet the Minister, I will.
I shall consult Children with Leukaemia and see whether there is another way in which we can make progress on this and continue the path of travel towards a consensus, as well as some form of legislative action, which will give great comfort to many people across the country.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 23

Third party rights of appeal
‘(1) TCPA 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 78(2) (right to appeal), insert—
“(2A) Where a local planning authority approve an application for planning permission, certain persons as specified in subsection (2B) below may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State.
(2B) Persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the approval of planning permission in the circumstances specified in subsection (2A) above are—
(a) any persons who have lodged a formal objection to the planning application in writing to the planning authority for the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated;
(b) other persons at the discretion of a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose.”
(3) In section 79 (determination of appeals)—
(a) in subsection (2), the word “either” shall be omitted, and after the words “if the appellant or the local planning authority” there shall be inserted the words “or the applicant (where different from the appellant)”;
(b) in subsection (6), after the words “or to proceed with the determination”, there shall be inserted the words “except for appeals as defined in section 78, subsection (2A), and where the appellant is as defined in section 78, subsection (2B)”;
(c) After subsection (7), there is inserted—
“(8) The Secretary of State shall have a discretion to dismiss an appeal or referral where, having considered the grounds of appeal or referral, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the appeal or referral—
(a) is vexatious, frivolous or without substance or foundation, or
(b) is made with the sole intention of delaying the development or the intention of securing the payment of money, gifts, consideration or other inducement by any person.”’.—[Dan Rogerson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Daniel Rogerson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause deals with third-party right of appeal. This is by no means the first time that it has been raised. It was raised by a few Members on Second Reading, not least the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), and I think the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) also referred to it.
The issue is a source of mystification and some frustration to constituents who come to us following the granting of planning permission on a particular development. They come to a local Member of Parliament in the hope that the Member can overrule the local planning authority and change the judgment, and they are unhappy to discover that that is not the case. When they ask what options are open to them, they are told that judicial review is the only course that could overturn a planning decision.
I accept that there are many potential problems with this course of action. If every planning application were subject to a third-party right of appeal we would soon have no planning applications going through the system, as it would be clogged up. It needs to be quite clearly defined, therefore, and there has to be a set of circumstances that are prescribed within which such a right of appeal may be exercised.
We do need, however, to explore this issue again. There is a sense of inequity. Those who propose the development are almost in an equal position to those who object to it, perhaps for valid reasons, when it is initially considered by a planning authority, but if the permission is not granted, there is a right of appeal for the applicant, whereas if it is granted, there is no right of appeal for those who have objected.
The likelihood that a planning committee may have got it wrong and may have overlooked a factor is the same in both circumstances. There is a difference of opportunity, therefore, between those who are seeking to pursue a scheme and those who are seeking to object to it. We have already discussed the fact that the infrastructure planning commission will take away bigger schemes from local authorities, albeit many that would have gone to the Secretary of State anyway through the planning inspectorate. It would be a good message to those who feel that local democracy is being undermined that there is the opportunity for their voice to be strengthened through the planning process by way of a third-party right of appeal.
I am not expecting the Minister to jump on this straight away and say, “Yes, of course I accept it,” but it would be interesting to hear the Government’s current thinking on this and whether there are any limited circumstances within which they think this might be re-examined. There are many groups who have been consulting with all Members of the Committee over this Bill and who will be submitting evidence who feel that there is scope for some form of third-party right of appeal. It must not be designed to gum up the planning process. It should be seen as an attempt to ensure that there is a level playing field, so that those people who have legitimate objections to a scheme are not forced to consider judicial review as the only means of addressing their concerns. I hope that the Minister will say something about what might be done for people in that position.

Elfyn Llwyd: I support the new clause. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is not the first time that the issue has been discussed here. Of course, in any planning application, more often than not there is a disappointed person who might wish to object. There is a class of professional objectors—let us not forget about those dear people. However, if somebody, a neighbour for example, is badly affected by a planning decision, it is entirely reasonable for there to be a third-party right of appeal where there is a prima facie case for that.
The hon. Gentleman is right. We all have all met people in our surgeries who say, “They have big-gun lawyers from various places to do this, that and the next thing for them. I was listened to, but I am not sure whether they followed my argument, and anyway it was dismissed. Now, I have this potential bad property being built next door to me. It has devalued my property and made my life miserable. Why can I not appeal?”.
It is not a far-fetched notion, since the new clause contains a sort of gateway for sorting out the wheat from the chaff. I should also flag up that in several other jurisdictions not too far from here, it works very happily. Think of the model in Ireland, where they have a third-party right of appeal. It is not overused or misused, but it is there if necessary. To say, as we heard earlier, that the only route for challenge for a neighbour or an aggrieved person must be through a judicial review, is no comfort at all. I speak as a barrister—judicial review is an expensive process. It must be undertaken within a defined period by specialist counsel, who do not come cheap. Importantly, the decision must come within what are called the Wednesbury principles: the planning board or authority must have acted unreasonably, and to prove that is a very narrow gateway.
To be blunt, for most people there is no redress at all, and the new clause is designed to put in the Bill a form of redress for people who are genuinely aggrieved and affected. It is highly reasonable, and looking at other jurisdictions—I know a little about the Irish system—it is not overused but is there when necessary. I fully support the new clause, and will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.

Parmjit Dhanda: The hon. Members for North Cornwall and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy make the counter-argument as well as the argument, by pointing out that there is no clear way of doing this in terms of third parties. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy mentioned professional objectors, and how to get around them. It is true that we have a different role and different rights for applicants and third parties. The hon. Gentlemen have hit the nail on head in terms of the dangers and problems relating to third parties that get in the way and block very good and positive developments that could make a difference in local communities.
It is also important to remember the discussion that we had on part 9, when we talked about the democratic accountability of the system through elected councillors. Those councillors represent their communities. They must take into account the views of local people on planning matters before decisions are made, and justify those decisions subsequently to their electorate. I do not think we should underestimate the importance of that. Although the hon. Member for North Cornwall says it would be nice to have this third-party right of appeal, he himself gets across the fact that it would be very difficult to do it without having issues with professional objectors and people who will delay a process for a significant period.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister spoke a moment or two ago about the role of councillors. There is a problem with that, as well. If, for example, a development was seen to be for the greater good, and Mr. A came along and said, “Well, it might be for the greater good, but it will ruin my property,” it would be difficult for a councillor to represent the views of that individual. More importantly, there should be a process at arm’s length from the councillor and the procedure where a person can legitimately take their claim if it qualifies. Regarding vexatious appeals, there is in the new clause a procedure for separating the wheat from the chaff.

Parmjit Dhanda: This goes back to a point about the role of councillors made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth at an earlier stage in Committee. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy himself was quite right when he said that in this process there will always be people who are aggrieved and people who are not aggrieved. However warm our words and our minds are now, I cannot change that. There are other important aspects. Anyone who is concerned about the handling of a planning matter can always go to a local authority’s monitoring officer. There is also the ombudsman process, which they can use without having to have expensive barristers. While taking on board the concerns raised by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, I am afraid I must disagree with him, and I hope, for the reasons that both he and I have outlined, that he will consider withdrawing the motion.

Daniel Rogerson: It is, in a way, unfortunate that we are talking about “third-party” rights of appeal, which implies someone wandering past, somewhat removed from the decision. Actually, we are dealing with people whose lives could be very much affected by what goes on. I have listened very carefully to the Minister, but we need to make the distinction between a third-party right of appeal—I am using the phrase myself—and a third-party right of veto, which is not what we are talking about.
The Minister seemed to imply that this would be a process where objectors could halt development. In fact, it would simply be a way for them to delay development, although, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said, there is provision in the new clause for the Secretary of State to dismiss appeals made with the sole intention of delaying. It would in no way give objectors a right of veto. It would merely level the playing field in terms of developers’ rights, although in saying that I am at risk of straying into a later new clause about playing fields. If it is the case, with regard to accountability, that councillors should have the final say and that there should not be a right of appeal, why is there a right of appeal for developers over the heads of local councillors? That is, in a way, a circular argument.
The Minister also talks about appeals to the ombudsman. The ombudsman can look into something and say that the council was perhaps a little bit naughty, or behaved poorly, and say, “Yes, you have been treated badly, here is £50 or £100 or an apology from the council,” but that will not change the planning application at all. People may feel vindicated, but that does not change the problem they had in the first place. The ombudsman will not be able to overturn the decisions; only judicial review can do that.
I am not convinced by the Minister’s arguments. I appreciate that this is a contentious and difficult issue, but as we heard from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, other countries have looked at it and come up with systems that work. I will not press the new clause to a vote, but I hope that the Government have listened to the arguments. I know that there are feelings across the House about this, and whether we return to it at a later stage of the Bill remains to be seen. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 24

Playing fields
‘(1) The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (“the 1995 Order”) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (z)(ii)(aa) of the table in Article 10(1) (as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) Order 1996) leave out “5” and insert “20”.
(3) In paragraph (ii)(l) of Article 10(2) of the 1995 Order, leave out “0.4” and insert “0.2”.’.—[Dan Rogerson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Daniel Rogerson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is an interesting part of our deliberations, in that all hon. Members now have the opportunity to look at other aspects of planning that were not at the heart of the earlier areas of the Bill. This could be our only opportunity to debate them for several years to come, so there are a number of issues that we want to raise.
The new clause provides the opportunity to get the Government’s stated policy into the Bill. The Government have a long-standing commitment to look at these issues and protect playing fields. There are two problems with the current regulations. First, there is a five-year limit, so if somewhere has not been used as a playing field for five years it is not covered. Secondly, there is a premium with regard to size of 0.4, which the new clause would change to 0.2. I understand that Sport England has made this point, and the Government have said that it will be addressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has been quite assiduous in pursuing Ministers on this over some time. In response to his parliamentary question last July, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) said:
“this will be reflected in the consultation paper on the review of statutory consultees due later this year”—[Official Report, 17 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 226W.]
Nothing had come by the time we approached the end of the year, so there was a further question from my hon. Friend in January, and this time the same Minister’s reply was that the review of statutory consultees would
“be published in due course.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1168W.]
We have moved from having it by the end of last year to “in due course”, which does not inspire a huge amount of confidence.
We have up to 850 cases of development occurring on playing fields each year, so this is a matter of some urgency. The Government have already said that they wish to protect playing fields. By accepting the new clause, which would increase the period to 20 years and address the issue of the size of the fields, they would be able to solve this problem. I hope that the Minister will be feeling generous on this occasion.

Parmjit Dhanda: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the issue of playing fields to our attention. He mentioned some cases, but we have no clear evidence of this being a widespread problem—I will talk a little more about that in a moment. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is, I hope, aware of our position on this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool wrote to him as recently as 15 January.
We believe that the first element of new clause 24 is entirely unnecessary, as PPG 17 in its entirety already provides the necessary protection. Even if the land is no longer a playing field—in other words, the five-year period that is currently set has expired—the land will still receive protection as open space under PPG 17, which is important. Ministerial colleagues have agreed that officials should meet Sport England to discuss this matter further, which they will. If change is needed, it can be achieved by amending secondary legislation, rather than the Bill.
On the second element that he raised, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the parliamentary answer that my hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for Bath on 15 January. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman mentioned this part of his answer, but I will quote from it. My hon. Friend said:
“We are committed to reducing the threshold for statutory consultation on the sale of playing fields from 0.4 hectares to 0.2 hectares”.—[Official Report, 15 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1168W.]
It sounds like a reduction in this case is a good thing. This topic will be included in the consultation paper in the review of statutory consultees to be published in due course. We hope to introduce amendments to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 following the consultation.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that we are actively pursuing both topics that he raised. I invite him to withdraw the motion and will undertake to write to him about the Sport England process.

Daniel Rogerson: The Minister made it clear that the Government are considering this issue very closely. However, there are Government figures that show how many applications are made each year. As I have said, there are 850 based on the latest Government figures. Sport England said that about 50 of those constituted a significant threat to playing fields. While I am grateful to hear that the Government are continuing to pursue action on this matter, the longer they delay, the fewer playing fields there will be to protect. It is therefore important that action is taken as soon as possible.
What I was trying to illustrate with the changing answers that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath received to his questions between July last year and January this year was that at one point the Government were talking about introducing something by the end of last year, and now they are talking about its happening “in due course”. I am glad that it will happen, but when it will happen is the question.
I will not seek to press the motion, but I would like to add one other point. As I understand it, the protection is quite closely drafted to cover sports pitches and specifies a number of particular sports. There may well be pressure on play areas used by younger children. For some reason, the local authority might have decided to withdraw or not to maintain the play equipment. Those are not sports pitches as such, but they are important amenities for young children and their parents. As part of the consultation, I would like the Government to look at that issue as well, to see whether the provision can include those important play areas. It is very common in new developments to have a play area as the area of green space, under section 106 agreements. It is very important to protect those areas. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 25

Use Class Orders
‘(1) The local planning authority may, when it deems it appropriate to do so, report on the effectiveness of the Use Class Orders available to it in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.
(2) In a report published under subsection (1) (“the Use Class Order report”), the local planning authority may submit to the Secretary of State proposals for new Use Class Orders to be made under sections 55(2)(f) and 333(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
(3) The Secretary of State shall consider the Use Class Order report within four weeks of receiving it and may—
(a) order that new Use Classes be made under sections 55(2)(f) and 333(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to reflect proposals made in the Use Class Order report, or
(b) reject the proposals made in the Use Class Order report and publish the reasons for that rejection in at least one local newspaper circulating in the relevant area.
(4) Where the Secretary of State uses her power under subsection (3)(b) the Secretary of State shall have a duty to meet with the local planning authority within four weeks of the Secretary of State’s decision.’.—[Dan Rogerson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Daniel Rogerson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause deals with a subject very close to my heart, and I know that it is close the hearts of a number of hon. Members across the House who are experiencing problems with the unsustainable increase in second homes in their constituencies. The issue that most applies to me, as a local Member of Parliament, in terms of use class orders, is that of second homes. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) would say the same. There are also related issues that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) has raised with regard to “studentification”. A number of other hon. Members are working with her on that issue in urban areas where there is great pressure on local housing stock from the growing student population.
The new clause would give local authorities the power not to create use class orders of their own accord, but to work with the Secretary of State to see whether they could be used as part of a solution to a particular local problem. As the hon. Member for Beckenham has said in the past, the drafting of Opposition proposals may not be entirely watertight, so I am looking for anything that the Government can offer in terms of an intention to re-examine this issue.
This matter has been raised in a number of reports. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) is working with the Government at the moment on affordable rural housing. Elinor Goodman's commission, which reported a while ago, mentioned the potential for using planning powers to restrict the growth in the number of second homes. I have debated this issue in the past when speaking on housing for the Liberal Democrats. At that point, the Member for Beckenham raised concerns about seeking to control the market through use class orders and said that people had a right to own second homes. I am not seeking to restrict people's rights in that regard, but we have to take account of the fact that there are areas where a particular class of property, which is not currently defined within a use class order, is distorting the local housing market or the local environment in some way.
I shall illustrate my point by mentioning the population statistics on Cornwall, which has seen a lot of development over the past few decades. The population of Cornwall has grown a great deal, which is recognised among other things by its getting six Members of Parliament, not five, at the next general election. However, closer examination shows that the population in some parishes is declining. Housing is being built in those areas—for example, Padstow, which has become famous because of a certain resident and his culinary expertise, has had development—but the overall population statistics show a decline. That is because there is a growing number of second homes. At the moment, although there may be tax issues to consider in respect of increasing the burden on a second home owner, that is not a disincentive to someone who has the financial wherewithal to have one. So the historic centres of towns and villages are increasingly deserted in terms of local residents. That situation is not sustainable. It has a knock-on effect on local schools and local services, particularly out of the holiday season. A number of coastal communities in Cornwall—and, increasingly, inland communities—are being affected in this way.
Elinor Goodman's report talks about examining use class orders as a way of distinguishing between a second home and a home that is being used as a full-time residence. There is great merit in pursuing that. I therefore seek some assurance from the Minister that that suggestion is not being entirely discounted and that it will be examined for the future. I do not believe that just looking at tax alternatives will solve this problem. We can continue building affordable housing and increasing development, but if the housing market continues to be distorted by the bias towards second homes in some areas, we will not save those communities for the future. I hope that the Minister has some good news for me.

Elfyn Llwyd: I support the new clause. This is another matter that has exercised hon. Members in the House for some time. I introduced a ten-minute Bill 10 years ago, proposing exactly the same thing. The Government are now concentrating on affordable homes. I am afraid that second homes pose a great difficulty, because where there is a preponderance of them we find that villages are dying, local amenities are being cut and basic services, such as local schools, post offices, village shops and garages, for example, are fast disappearing. I fully support what the hon. Member for North Cornwall is trying to do with the new clause.
The problem of rural depopulation was recognised by the House not so long ago, when we legislated to allow rate relief for rural retailers. That was welcome, but it is not enough, because the second homes factor exacerbates existing problems. They are socially divisive, as they are empty for most of the year and are therefore of little benefit to the community. They do not assist the viability of village retailers, because their occupants are only there for a few weeks or months of the year. They also bring with them social problems. The usual scenario is that second homes are purchased by those who can afford them—the owners often earn salaries that are many times more than the average salary of those in the local community, and they are able to pay the asking price without quibble—while locals are left in the wake, wondering when, if ever, they will be able to enter the property market and buy a house in their own community, very often in an area in which they were born and brought up.
The problem is evident in villages in Kent, the Cotswolds, Somerset, Cumbria, Cornwall and throughout the UK. In Wales, the problem has an added dimension, because it directly dilutes the indigenous culture and language, which is of great concern to all those who hold them dear. My answer is that there should be a use class order for a property that is not occupied throughout the year. The local planning authority could decide, for example, what percentage of such homes is viable in any given community. It would be unwise, if not silly, to legislate for a certain figure throughout Britain, because that clearly would make no sense. There are some seaside towns that, for the past century, have had a huge number of second homes, which they have been coping with reasonably well. However, some rural villages are dying because of the preponderance of second homes. That is not just the view of the hon. Member for North Cornwall and myself. Many hon. Members throughout the House are coming to that view now.
The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs reported back in 1994 that redefining the use class order is one tool that could be used to assist in delivering affordable housing in rural areas. It is tragic to see villages dying on their feet and, worse still, youngsters being unable to live in the villages in which they were born and brought up. Such an order is not the absolute answer—I am not saying that if such a move was accepted by Government, all affordable home problems would disappear; that is absolute nonsense—but it would be a great step forward. I remember when the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon was a Minister in the Department of the Environment. He was persuaded of the efficacy of such an order in helping to create more affordable homes. Unfortunately, there was further deliberation in Cabinet and the measure did not go forward. Therefore, the suggestion is not an eccentricity of the hon. Member for North Cornwall and his fellow Celt from Wales. It is a real problem, and this is a real answer. It is not the ultimate single answer, but it would assist the Government in their stated intention of providing affordable homes for all.

Parmjit Dhanda: I do not know whether I should declare an interest as someone who has dined at Rick Stein’s restaurant in Padstow—and very good it was, too.

Richard Benyon: Very new Labour.

Parmjit Dhanda: I can promise the hon. Gentleman that it was long before I became an MP. I am very sympathetic to the arguments of both hon. Gentlemen, but I disagree with the use of use class orders, because they are not the right vehicle or tool to achieve what they are talking about for their communities. The principal issue in categorising land for use class orders is whether there is a material change in the use of land between one use and another, which we do not get in the same way with second homes. There is nothing to distinguish a first home and a second home in that respect.

Daniel Rogerson: The point has been made to me before. However, I believe that there is a clear distinction between a house that is being used as a home and a house that is being used as a temporary luxury for people to stay in. In fact, it has been regular practice for local authorities in some areas to grant permission for a building to be occupied only for holiday use, and not as a residence. This is just turning that round. I am focusing on second homes here, but there may be wider applications in other circumstances for local areas where a use class order could be part of the solution. Second homes are just the example I am giving.

Parmjit Dhanda: That is useful, but use class orders are about what distinguishes properties in planning terms. That is the difference. Local authorities may well keep registers, and there may be differences between first homes and second homes—the question of where people pay tax, and so on. In planning terms, however, they are not distinguishable. For example, a Woolworths and a WH Smith are in the same class in planning terms, whereas fast food restaurants are in a different class. That is a fundamental difference.
We do look at use class orders, consult with local authorities and make changes. Although I am sympathetic to what the hon. Members are saying about their communities, with regard to planning—which is what the new clause, the clause and indeed the Bill are about—first homes and second homes are indistinguishable. That is why I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the new clause is not relevant.

Daniel Rogerson: I am disappointed by that response, though not entirely surprised, as I have heard it before. I was, however, present at a debate in Westminster Hall in which the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills spoke about the issue of studentification, to which I referred earlier.

Parmjit Dhanda: As I understand it, in planning terms, my right hon. Friend is right, because there is a definition of houses in multiple occupation. We are going to do more work later in the year around defining use class orders to do with houses in multiple occupation. That will not, however, remedy the problem with distinguishing between first homes and second homes, by which I assume he means wealthy people who live in one part of the country and have a holiday home elsewhere.

Daniel Rogerson: During the debate to which I referred, we discussed the issue of different uses within the residential category. I am intrigued by the idea that there is a bigger difference between an HMO and a house being used for full-time residency—which may both be used full-time—than between those and a home that is not being used as a residence but as a place where people can stay from time to time. This requires further examination.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy made an excellent contribution describing in some detail the soul-destroying effects of second homes on local communities. There may be other categories of which I am unaware, in commercial application and so on, where planning regulations and use class orders have not kept up with the way society has changed. I believe there is potential for local application, in consultation with the Secretary of State, by piloting these sorts of things, which can solve local problems, in local areas. As this is something I believe in very passionately, I seek to test the Committee’s opinion, and wish to press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 26

Enforcement charters
‘(1) PCPA 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 18 (statements of community involvement) insert—
“18A Enforcement charters
(1) The local planning authority must prepare an enforcement charter.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, an ‘enforcement charter’ shall set out—
(a) a statement of the authority’s policies as regards their taking enforcement action for the purposes of TCPA 1990,
(b) an account of how members of the public are to bring any ostensible breach of planning control to the attention of the authority, and
(c) an account—
(i) of how any complaint to the authority as regards the taking by them of enforcement action is to be made, and
(ii) of their procedures for dealing with any such complaint.
(3) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance to a planning authority for the purposes of this section and an authority must have regard to any guidance so issued.
(4) The local planning authority shall have a duty to review its charter and publish it—
(a) whenever required to do so by the Secretary of State,
(b) at least every two years, and
(c) in such a manner as the Secretary of State shall by regulation prescribe.
(5) For the purposes of sections 20 and 24 the enforcement charter is not a local development document.”’.—[Dan Rogerson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Daniel Rogerson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I feel that I might be making myself unpopular with hon. Members who have pressing business elsewhere. However, there is an important aspect that we have not addressed thoroughly enough, and it is the second issue about which constituents often come to us: enforcement. We go through a lengthy process of planning applications and negotiation to confirm what a developer must do to stay within the boundaries of what the local authority wants to impose. Again, we find that some of those aspects are not complied with. It is brave of a local authority to proceed with enforcement, because all too often enforcement does not take place.
I will not delay the Committee a great deal, but this measure would provide an opportunity to hold local authorities to account for the conditions that they impose. If enforcement is genuine, it gives more value to the planning process. If we are to have any faith in the system, we must take account not only of what happens in the run-up to the approval of a planning application, but also of what happens afterwards in ensuring that those who make the development do so within the boundaries that have been set.

Parmjit Dhanda: Local planning authorities are already advised to have an enforcement policy statement. The details are set out in chapter 1 of the Department’s publication, “Enforcing Planning Control: Good Practice Guide for Local Planning Authorities”. The enforcement policy statement includes almost all the requirements of the proposed enforcement charter in new clause 26. The policy statement sets out the authority’s policy for taking enforcement action. It gives details of the procedures for dealing with any complaints about enforcement action and it will be reviewed and published every year.
The Secretary of State gives guidance to local planning authorities in the good practice guide and in enforcement circular 10/97. That is being revised, and we expect to consult on a new draft circular later in the year—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will look out for it and may want to have some input. What is not covered in the enforcement policy statement, but would be in the enforcement charter, is an obligation on members of the public to inform the authority about a breach of planning control or to make a complaint about enforcement action, in a specified manner. That is the weakness of the new clause. We consider it less bureaucratic to allow members of the public to bring any breaches of planning control to the attention of their local planning authority by whatever means they happen to choose. We also consider that they should be able to complain to the local planning authority in their own way. Therefore, the new clause is unnecessary. Enforcement policy statements are the best means of publishing local planning authorities’ enforcement procedures and practices.

Daniel Rogerson: A continuing theme among constituents who come to me with enforcement problems is that they feel that they are doing the council’s job for them, in checking whether something is being built within legal bounds. Local authority resources are part of the problem. Constituents think that local authorities should have greater resources to check whether laws are being followed, rather than relying on people who are not technical experts. When those people examine a development, they may spot that a window, for example, was not quite where it was meant to be, or that a wall was slightly higher or went out further than originally stated.
However, I am pleased to hear that the Government continue to look at that matter and are introducing further guidelines to encourage local authorities to take it seriously. The problem is that often local authorities do take it seriously, but risk a cost in taking an enforcement action against someone, which is, therefore, a disincentive for them to do so. Some matters certainly bear further consideration and I am glad to hear that the Government are doing that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 1

‘Appeals: miscellaneous amendments

Town and Country Planning Act 1990
1 TCPA 1990 is amended as follows.
2 In section 78 (appeals against planning decisions and failure to take planning decisions) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) A notice of appeal under this section must be accompanied by such information as may be prescribed by a development order.
(4B) The power to make a development order under subsection (4A) is exercisable by—
(a) the Secretary of State, in relation to England;
(b) the Welsh Ministers, in relation to Wales.
(4C) Section 333(5) does not apply in relation to a development order under subsection (4A) made by the Welsh Ministers.
(4D) A development order under subsection (4A) made by the Welsh Ministers is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.”
3 In section 195 (appeals against refusal or failure to give decision on application under section 191 or 192) before subsection (2) insert—
“(1B) A notice of appeal under this section must be—
(a) served within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed by a development order;
(b) accompanied by such information as may be prescribed by such an order.
(1C) The time prescribed for the service of a notice of appeal under this section must not be less than—
(a) 28 days from the date of notification of the decision on the application; or
(b) in the case of an appeal under subsection (1)(b), 28 days from—
(i) the end of the period prescribed as mentioned in subsection (1)(b), or
(ii) as the case may be, the extended period mentioned in subsection (1)(b).
(1D) The power to make a development order under subsection (1B) is exercisable by—
(a) the Secretary of State, in relation to England;
(b) the Welsh Ministers, in relation to Wales.
(1E) Section 333(5) does not apply in relation to a development order under subsection (1B) made by the Welsh Ministers.
(1F) A development order under subsection (1B) made by the Welsh Ministers is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.”
4 (1) Section 208 (appeals against notices under section 207) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (4) substitute—
“(4) The notice shall—
(a) indicate the grounds of the appeal,
(b) state the facts on which the appeal is based, and
(c) be accompanied by such information as may be prescribed.
(4A) The power to make regulations under subsection (4)(c) is exercisable by—
(a) the Secretary of State, in relation to England;
(b) the Welsh Ministers, in relation to Wales.
(4B) Section 333(3) does not apply in relation to regulations under subsection (4)(c) made by the Welsh Ministers.
(4C) Regulations under subsection (4)(c) made by the Welsh Ministers are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.”
(3) In subsection (5) for “any such appeal” substitute “an appeal under subsection (1)”.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
5 In section 21 of the Listed Buildings Act (appeals: supplementary provisions) after subsection (7) insert—
“(8) Regulations under this Act may provide for an appeal under section 20 to be accompanied by such other information as may be prescribed.
(9) The power to make regulations under subsection (8) is exercisable by—
(a) the Secretary of State, in relation to England;
(b) the Welsh Ministers, in relation to Wales.
(10) Section 93(3) does not apply in relation to regulations under subsection (8) made by the Welsh Ministers.
(11) Regulations under subsection (8) made by the Welsh Ministers are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.”

Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990
6 In section 21 of the Hazardous Substances Act (appeals against decisions and failure to take decisions relating to hazardous substances) after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) A notice of appeal under this section must be accompanied by such information as may be prescribed.
(3B) The power to make regulations under subsection (3A) is exercisable by—
(a) the Secretary of State, in relation to England;
(b) the Welsh Ministers, in relation to Wales.
(3C) Section 40(3) does not apply in relation to regulations under subsection (3A) made by the Welsh Ministers.
(3D) Regulations under subsection (3A) made by the Welsh Ministers are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.”’.—[John Healey.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Ordered,
That certain written evidence already reported to the House be appended to the proceedings of the Committee.—[John Healey.]

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

John Healey: On a point of order, Sir John. I thank you and your co-Chair, Mr. Illsley, for keeping us on the straight and narrow during these proceedings, and for setting the tone for our deliberations, which has been productive, efficient and generally good-humoured.
I also thank the Clerks, who have provided great advice to you, Sir John, and to all hon. Members. I would like to thank the Hansard reporters, who are part of the essential underpinning of the work that we do. I thank the Doorkeepers too, for keeping the keys turning—but not too often—during Divisions. I thank the officials who have given such good support to me and my fellow Ministers. I particularly appreciate their work and the extent to which they have allowed me to honour my commitment to the Committee, at the outset, to ensure that new clauses and amendments would be tabled in good time. I pay tribute to the interest groups that have followed our proceedings, including those that gave evidence.
It is true that this Committee was not the hottest ticket in town, and that the Whips and the other Departments suddenly found it much easier to recruit to other Committees. They sidled up to people and said, “If you do not do this for me, you’ll be on the Planning Bill.” Attendance has been strong on both sides of the Committee and the active involvement in our proceedings has been good. It has improved our deliberations, including in the evidence session, which I, like you, Sir John, and the hon. Member for Beckenham experienced for the first time. We got there in the end, although I have to say that the procedural points that came before we started taking evidence in that first sitting were akin to a ward Labour party meeting in their extent and complexity.
I also pay tribute to and thank my colleagues as part of the ministerial team. They have done a great job. I greatly value their support and think that our deliberations were much the better for having Ministers from more than one Department.
On the Opposition, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy speaks from his Front Bench and his Back Bench simultaneously, but I guess he is used to that, and he has done a good job. The hon. Member for North Cornwall has had to do the same; he was largely on his own during the course of the Bill. He took us all aback when he talked about the fun that he used to have in planning inquiries. That gave us all a fresh perspective on the subject, and perhaps a fresh perspective on him as well.
As for the team of three on the Conservative Front Bench, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is not in his place, but we enjoyed the teamwork. Sometimes they divided the clauses up between them, sometimes two had a go, and sometimes the third weighed in as well. My best moment was when the hon. Gentleman was on his feet, just getting into his stride on applications to the infrastructure planning commission under part 5, and the hon. Member for Beckenham kept intervening on him, not to say actually cross-examining him. He was just getting going when she jumped up and said, “What is the definition of a project?” and sat down again. Had she done that to me, I would have been flummoxed, but he handled it with the great aplomb one would expect from a lawyer.
All the best Committees, in my experience, develop a language or a leitmotif of their own, and we were privileged when the Under-Secretary of State for Transport talked about modelling in one of our sessions and then promptly returned to the Committee, slightly chastened, having been privy to the precise world of the traffic engineers and what “modelling” really meant and had to correct our understanding.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth introduced the word “traffication”, which even those precise traffic engineers in the Department for Transport have probably never dreamed of, but I dare say we will find it appearing in the Department for Transport’s next Bill. I give the Committee my undertaking that it will not appear in this Bill while I am in charge of it.
I thank the Committee for its work on this stage of the Bill and look forward to our deliberations continuing in such a productive, constructive and good-humoured way.

Jacqui Lait: Further to that point of order, Sir John. May I add my thanks on behalf of my team to you and your co-Chairman for allowing us a fairly lenient ride on many occasions? I will not be critical at this stage about how the Bill is constructed, but we were grateful to you that we could put our comments and amendments into context. That was much appreciated. I am grateful also to the Clerks, who went above and beyond the call of duty. We were greatly helped by their skill and ability.
I also add my thanks to Hansard. I had an interesting exchange involving Hansard. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and myself came to the conclusion it was a score draw, and the accuracy of the reporting led us to that conclusion. Thank goodness for the Doorkeepers. I have lost count of how many litres of water I have drunk, and I am hugely grateful for their help.
I am grateful also to the team, who contributed nobly. It is because I knew that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst could cope that I gave him such a hard task. I would not do it to many others. I am grateful to everybody for the part that they played in ensuring that, as far as possible, we made as many comments, amendments and points as we could to improve the Bill. We tried to make it a Bill that we could support, but it is somewhat like the curate’s egg at the moment, good in parts.
I am grateful also to hon. Members from the other parties. I am sorry that we could not always vote with the hon. Member for North Cornwall, but then, without playing tit-for-tat, there was also a time when he could not support us. We appreciate the part they played, contributing to the general good humour and co-operation that, as an Opposition collectively, we were able to put forward.
It has been interesting to work opposite the Government team. It is quite difficult when there are so few of us against massive numbers. We look forward to reversing the situation in due course, probably sooner than they may like. However, it was good that we had helpful contributions from so many Labour Members. In fact, we often came up with similar ideas, few of which got us very far, but we tried.
It just remains for me to thank everybody for such a good-humoured Committee, which, with a bit of luck, we will be able to finish in time so that the Whips, who were so agitated to begin with about whether we would deliver the Bill on time, can be reassured that when we say we can deliver a Bill on time, we will deliver it.

Daniel Rogerson: Further to that point of order, Sir John. I would like to thank you and Mr. Illsley for keeping us under control and steering us back in the direction of the Bill on occasions when we might have been ranging off it. That is indicative of the subject matter: planning touches on so many other fields.
I thank the Clerk and his colleagues in the Public Bill Office for their late-night advice when I was seeking to table amendments. Although I have sat on other Public Bill Committees, this is the first time I have led for my party, so it was a bit of a learning curve. Having been appointed over Christmas to be shadow spokesman on the Department of Communities and Local Government, it was quite a quick arrival into dealing with the subject matter.
It has been an enjoyable experience. I thank Hansard,the Doorkeepers and officials, some of whom I met in the run-up to the Bill while trying to clarify some points. That was particularly useful. It may not have led me to agree with the Government, but at least I knew what they were saying. It was interesting to see that the ministerial team had a different style each time a different set of clauses was reached, and the collective involvement made the whole process more enjoyable.
It has also been a pleasure to work with other Opposition Members. Sometimes we agreed and sometimes we did not, but if we agreed all the time it would be worrying to our colleagues elsewhere. It was probably reassuring that we did disagree on some key areas. I agree with the hon. Lady that parts of the Bill still give cause for concern, and I look forward to addressing those at a later stage.

Elfyn Llwyd: Further to that point of order, Sir John. It would be churlish of me not to take part in this holy alliance—these valedictories. It has been a genuinely interesting Bill. I nearly said “a great pleasure,” but I do not want to exaggerate. We have engaged fully with the subject, and Ministers have done their best to answer questions. Although there was a bit of a falling out earlier, generally speaking it was a well-mannered Committee. I thank you, Sir John, and Mr Illsley, and the other Front-Bench spokesmen.
The Bill is probably in the same condition as when we started, but we have had lengthy debates where necessary, which has to be a good thing. I think we have examined as much as we can. It might be that these matters will be returned to in another place; I know not. It has been an interesting experience and I thank everyone involved.

John Butterfill: I will pass on hon. Members’ kind words to my co-Chairman, Mr. Illsley. I did not need any persuasion to act as Chairman for this Bill, since it relates to my own past professional career, although I am not still in practice. As far as I am concerned, it is a very interesting Bill and there were occasions when I had to restrain myself from intervening, but I am pleased that I managed to avoid doing that.
It has been a very good natured Committee and the innovation in taking evidence was beneficial. It worked very well—indeed, much better than I had expected. Having said all that, I thank hon. Members for their kind words.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at one minute past Six o’clock.